French Car Gets 7,150 Miles Per Gallon

Given that the cars are allowed to use solar power, 7,150 MPG seem awful compared to the milage achieved by the Solar Challenge car (www.wsc.org.au). Those cars achieve infinite MPG. (Take a drop of gas, carry it with you the entire race and 3000km later, you've used none of it).

The problem with solar only cars is the inability to travel at night. You'd still need some sort of an electrical / battery / other fuel source backup plan.

Somewhat old hat...(2006 competition I believe)
The french car picture is powered by hydrogen fuel cells, making it an electric, making the mpg rating a masterful work of unit conversion.
James, your comment about solar is why the ecomarathon puts solar cars in a separate category that cannot compete for the grand prize.
As for "inovation" it is more a mater of priorities. This is what can be achieved when to end goal is fuel economy not comfort, style, or speed.

Calling this vehicle a "car" is a bit of a stretch. I could call my pencil a super efficient computer because I can use it to do calculations, write, and draw things and uses no electricity at all, but ultimately it is just a pencil.

Ummm.... someone has the maths wrong. One story says the "mileage" was 7150 miles/gallon, and another one says it was 3794 km/litre. These two values aren't the same, though.

3794 km/l = 2357 mi/l = 8924 mi/gallon

7150 mi/gallon = 1889 mi/l = 3040 km/l

There seems to be a discontinuity in the maths (or in the reporting).

Solar or not wouldn't matter for this...

The way they find 7,150 miles per gallon is NOT that they drove that many miles and used a gallon of gas. They used an incremental amount of hydrogen, and found the amount of energy (joules) that were expected for some distance and extrapolated. If it were powered by solar, you could just monitor how much of that electricity was expended and come up with some answer that would be almost the same. Theonly differences would be the weight and inefficiencies between running a hydrogen engine or solar panels.

So while solar is obviously a better source of fuel, it doesn't change the effective miles per gallon (eMPG).

7,000 MPG
35 MPG

The difference between what can be achieved, and what we do achieve is staggering. The regulations requiring better fuel economy, and hence less emissions, can and should be pumped up, so cars won't be so pumped.

My suggestion is to add a surcharge tax of $5,000 on any personal vehicle that gets less than double our current fleet average. We have production cars that do better than 70 mpg, but little personal incentive to use them, and lots of incentive to see others using them (pollution & greenhouse effect).

Meanwhile, court battles over who has 'jurisdiction' to place the most minimal skimpy requirements for cars is outrageous. The EPA should welcome California's plans to protect the environment and make the same regulations nation wide, and even require incoming visiting cars to meet these same regulations.

"The difference between what can be achieved, and what we do achieve is staggering."

Not so much when you look at the difference in the utility, performance, safety, comfort, cost and test conditions. The car pictured above did not achieve 7150 mpg equivalent by EPA protocol, but some ideal, low speed, steady-state condition, is only large enough to accomodate one person, probably has a turning radius several times that of a Suburban (judging by the tight-skirted wheels), is slower than an NEV, has no safety features, requires a nearly completely reclined seating position (you can see the driver's feet in the windshield) in a plastic box with no air conditioning, and cost more than my house to build.

Take the same vehicle, increase its size, change its shape and add some nice upholstery so as to accomodate 4 or 5 people and a little luggage comfortably, open the wheel wells and replace the three bicycle wheels with 4 all-season tires, give it enough power to merge into and keep up with traffic, add airbags, abs pumps, bumpers, and structural reinforcements, glass windows, air conditioning, power accessories, a stereo, etc, make a few consessions on the body shape for the sake of aesthetics, strengthen everything enough to deal with typical daily abuse, and replace all of the high-dollar materials and tech to bring the price down to the rest of the vehicles in this market, and it would probably get about 35 mpg in the EPA cycle.

GL, the problem with your 35mpg part is that cars are WAY more than they need to be. I bet we could see 100mpg cars soon if they were big enough for just 4 people (slightly narrower), were only capable of driving 55mph (plenty fast enough), designed for aerodynamics, and driven modestly. It could be just as safe, nearly as useful, and save a heck of a lot of gas.

@ GL - I see there is at least one person who thinks 35 MPG is reasonable. It isn't.

Back in the 50's we were Rocking Around The Clock and Peggy Sue got 35 MPG in her car.
A zero improvement in 50 years, and even a decrease in fleet mileage is very unreasonable.

Cars can get better mileage, and some do. The outrageous resource wasting and eco-system destruction by the "flower power" generation is a crime against nature. We should be ashamed, and do something about it.

Sadly, buying a Hummer is still acceptable to some. Still, times and moral standards change. We no longer think fur coats are a status symbol to look up to, and will eventually come to despise other hurtful products.

"I bet we could see 100mpg cars soon if they were big enough for just 4 people (slightly narrower), were only capable of driving 55mph (plenty fast enough), designed for aerodynamics, and driven modestly."

You'd lose that bet. Sure, such a vehicle could be built, but the product has to be accpetable to the buying public or it is just an academic exercise. The form factor you describe is a Chevy Aveo which isn't exciting anyone.

Is 55 plenty fast enough? The speed limit in a lot of freeways is 70, so the government would probably ban such a vehicle from them just as NEV's are banned from most roads. Worse yet, a vehicle with only enough power to go 55 would have a rate of acceleration so slow it would barely be able to move itself from a standing stop. Highway speed isn't where vehicles use the most power, it is acceleration. Imagine turning left onto a busy street without right of way in a vehicle that will take 20 seconds to cross the first lane.

Designing purely for aerodynamics tends to yield very round vehicles that not everyone likes. Many find the Prius quite unattractive. Like everything, what people find appealing in vehicle design goes in trends. In the mid-80's the aerodynamic look was popular, but after a while people tired of it and turned to "edgier" looking vehicles. The aerodynamic look will become popular again at some point, and then it will become unpopular again.

"I see there is at least one person who thinks 35 MPG is reasonable."

Given the current market and regulatory demands , state of technology, and costs, it isn't too bad.

"Back in the 50's we were Rocking Around The Clock and Peggy Sue got 35 MPG in her car.
A zero improvement in 50 years, and even a decrease in fleet mileage is very unreasonable."

First, few vehicles in the 50's would get 35 MPG by the EPA standard (which wasn't started until 1972 so efficiency data prior to that is no more than unconfirmed manufacturer marketing claims) and NONE of them would meet required safety or emissions standards. Their emissions were so poisonous, people could commit suicide by running their engine with the garage door closed. That's not even possible now.

EVERY other aspect of the vehicles has improved greatly - safety, comfort, performance, reliability, emissions - the aspects which buyers most value most, so to say there has been ZERO improvement is extreme cherry-picking of the facts, and for the capability and burden placed upon them they are still pretty efficient.

"Still, times and moral standards change. We no longer think fur coats are a status symbol to look up to, and will eventually come to despise other hurtful products."

Exactly, and when that happens we'll have a much more efficient fleet of vehicles, because manufacturers will make whatever buyers what, but for now enough people still think large, powerful vehicles are cool and will continue to buy them for as long as they can afford to feed them.

It reminds me of the Oscar Meyer Wienermobile.

"Worse yet, a vehicle with only enough power to go 55 would have a rate of acceleration so slow it would barely be able to move itself from a standing stop."

I take you don't drive stick...First gear a car will take off like a shot up to about 20 mph because of gearing reduction. That same car has to be Rev Limited in fifth gear to because of maximum speed limits. Vehicle power well exceed the demand of aero drag. Adopting smaller engines and refocusing the gearing a car accelerate well and get better fuel economy.

"but the product has to be accpetable to the buying public or it is just an academic exercise. "

Consumers tend to buy what they are sold. If a dealer has 50 new SUVs on the lot with all the bells and whistles and only handful of barebones compacts they are not going to by the compact.

I conclude with a little about what I drive:

'94 acura integra ls mpg rated 25/31 140hp
Now, check out hondas voodoo magic
integra GS-R mpg rate 25/30 170hp
integra Type-R mpg rate 25/30 195hp

HOLY DIP! an increase in 55hp and only a loss of 1 mpg, where did they find that much extra power?
V-TEC: developed by honda to allow give there 4 clynders cars better performance with out sacrificing fuel effiency. Common to almost all new cars now
Lighter Car: the Type-R was worked over by engineers and technicians to remove excess weight, making the car sportier but also helped it use less gas.
Hand Tuning: The type-R engine was hand assembled (honda could only produce a handful a day) so as to be perfectly balanced and ported(better air flow). This minimized some losses common to combustion engines.

Think about that being worked to achieve better mpg rather than more power. My 140hp car could be sipping away at 40mpg. And it is 14 years old. Don't tell us not to be disappointed we don't have that in 2008.

VW released a very well equipped and very comfy diesel that gets near 60 mpg.

My 2004 Jetta gets 40mpg with the AC on and running 75mph on the freeway..

Getting 100 mpg in a NICE car, not a "luxury yacht", is very doable if we just try. The problems are, A) no one wants to really try (though, a few makers are trying to follow VW now), and B) Americans are too fat and lazy and stupid and selfish to "give a little" to help save the planet. The "market" supplies the morons what they want, but no one ever stopped to think that the morons want what ever they can get. Offer them less destructive choices and they will chose them. Duh?

That seems incredible, even impossible, i would love to read more about this!

I have a friend who participates in this type of competition. The reason they get such high mpg is that the engine is not constantly running. They get to a certain speed, turn off the engine when coasting and when they get below a certain speed, they turn on the engine again to gain speed and turn it off again, and so on. it wouldn't be practical in real world driving conditions, but if more engines had an automatic turn off/turn on at a red light, mpg would be better. And yes, the technology is there to get better mpg, but people want big and powerful cars. As an example, newer Honda Civics are the same size (or bigger) and as powerful (or more) than older Honda Accords. BTW, the VW Lupo 3L burns 3L/100km on the highway [78MPG (US) or 94 MPG (imperial)] and seats 4.

Who cares. No one in their right mind would use something like this. A bicycle is a much better option than this claustrophobic coffin on wheels.

Get the opening comment right as well. It is the US auto industry that is pressuring the EPA to fight the California over the efficiency requirements. Given the industries bad record, I suspect the only reason why they are interested in fuel efficiency is due to the high price of gas and not concern regarding the environment

Again, just another part of the PR campaign by the industry trying to convince people that the automobile has a future. The sooner we realize this and invest in rail, public transit and cycling, the better.

I agree with Richard Campbell, the sooner we realize that we need to change our attitude, the better.

The biggest problem with developing a sustainable future isn't the ability to develop economic and cleaner energy, that is definitely possible, no the biggest problem is changing our attitudes and lifestyles.

We want to keep the same level of life style but we also want it to be sustainable, we don't want to have to give anything up, sorry, not possible.

The sooner we face the fact that we need to stop consuming so much, the sooner we will be able to develop a brighter future for our ascendants.

It seems that a lot of people don't want to drive in a 3 foot tall eco-bubble, even if it's the most efficient vehicle out there.

But why can't the major car companies just take some of the design principles and more specifically some of the actual technologies used on cars like this and other cars at the competition, and design cars that get a paltry 1000 mpg or 100 mpg or even 50 mpg?

I have to agree with Richard Campbell as well.

You can chop 40% of your personal CO2 emissions right off the top by ditching your car.

"But I can't live without my car!" so many people cry. That's because you haven't even tried to live without one. Necessity is the mother of all invention, and you can find so many easy ways to work around this lack of car ownership.

Personally, I haven't owned a car in... well, forever. The last time I even drove or held some semblance of a driver's license was about 8 years ago when I was 24. I currently live in Burnaby, the closest suburb of Vancouver, Canada. I own a townhouse 4 blocks from work, 4 blocks from a skytrain station, and three blocks from the grocery store and a small cluster of mini-malls. There's also a major mall a walkable (but we prefer to bike or take the skytrain 1 stop) distance away - about 10 blocks or so.

I've engineered my life around not owning a car (or two - for "backup"), and as a result I could afford to buy closer to the city where I didn't *need* a car. So many other Canadians (and Americans are no different in this regard) have instead engineered their lives around owning a car, and gods help them all should there ever be a shortage of gasoline again. As for the present... well, I count myself as one of the lucky few that doesn't constantly complain about the price of gas at work.

hello, HELLO, wake up all.... do the numbers...think taxes. to ride a toy down the real road i wish i had a L-3d on my forhead..sorry can not draw a picture . nice idea just like the twike in 1999 $8,000 grand 55mph 150 miles a charge. to day $26,000 grand 25 mph 50 miles a charge. in the real times 2000 year pettle, carbon nutrual 2009 push kart.

78MPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

78MPG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

The problem with the car is that it is treated as a replacement for our legs and for bikes. It was originally intended to replace the horse and buggy, which was used for long distance transport and hauling heavy things. But people usually get over excited by new technology, and soon everyone had to have one, because speed was considered a thrill. So I agree that we should go back to bikes, walking and public transit, but I think the car will still be needed for it's original purpose of hauling large things. So this sort of research is still useful, but, as everyone keeps saying, our attitudes about the car need to change.

wow its just a car

"I take you don't drive stick..."

Actually Jeremiah, most of the cars I've owned were stick as is the one I drive currently (130hp, 26/34mpg). I've been driving, repairing and maintaining cars for about 25 years, and I'm a mechanical engineer, so I know a thing or two about power, speed, acceleration, and gearing, but with only enough power to go 55 in top gear you'd to get any appreciable acceleration in first gear you'd probably be topped out under 5 mph.

"That same car has to be Rev Limited in fifth gear to because of maximum speed limits. "

Many vehicles are still aero rather than aero limited.

"Adopting smaller engines and refocusing the gearing a car accelerate well and get better fuel economy."

You are proposing higher engine speed to compensate for lack of power, but the higher engine speed also increases wear and stress of the engine which reduces the longevity of the engine (not to mention increases emissions as the engine wears out).

"HOLY DIP! an increase in 55hp and only a loss of 1 mpg, where did they find that much extra power?"

The Type-R, as the Civic SI and S2000, was able to achieve a very high HP number because it could rev to about 9000 rpm, but still made very little torque and power at low rpm, which isn't very "usable" power, and most people don't care too much for hearing their engine screaming all the time.

"The type-R engine was hand assembled (honda could only produce a handful a day) so as to be perfectly balanced and ported(better air flow). This minimized some losses common to combustion engines."

It also increases cost and slows down production.

"My 140hp car could be sipping away at 40mpg. And it is 14 years old."

In that 14 years, safety measures have added hundreds of pounds of additional structural reinforcement, airbags, and abs pumps, and emissions requirements have worked against efforts to increase engine efficiency.

And for those pointing to the LUPO 3L as proof that our cars should be so much more efficient, for all of its extensive use of engine and transmission technology, light weight materials and low rolling resistance tires, it is smaller than a Yaris, said to be terribly unpleasant to drive, does not meet US emissions and safety standards, and still only manages 78 mpg. I don't even think VW still makes it. If it failed in Europe where fuel is twice the price, what makes you think Americans would buy it?

DON'T TAX THE VEHICLE. TAX THE USAGE.

In response to the posting suggesting another $5000 tax on gas guzzlers. We've already seen that Gas guzzler taxes don't work. Once someone has paid this so-called penalty, many polluters feel entitled to drive these vehicles everyday. Instead, tax the usage, or more specifically tax the fuel. Because a 10 mpg SUV sitting in the garage pollutes alot less than a 60mpg hybrid driving 100 miles a day.

If we're talking about imposing taxes to influence behavior, lets be specific about what we want to change. Its fun to blame monster SUVs for the problems on our planet, but thats a narrow view of the problem. I would rather make it feasible for someone to afford (or share) a big SUV for the times when they really need it, and drive a 100+ mpg vehicle (or electric, or even a bicycle) the other 95% of the time. I would rather someone own that SUV for the monthly trip to mountains and walk to work, every day than everyone buying a new Hybrid to justify the house they bought in a new housing tract 40 miles away from their job.

Price gasoline at $10/gallon. Or $20/gallon. Put the extra $5 or $10 in taxes towards real research into alternative fuels. Cause people some real pain at the pump and watch how fast manufacturing facilities migrate closer to consumers. Watch how fast suburban sprawl is replaced with urban in-fill. And watch how fast people demand more efficient vehicles from the auto makers.

Its not ironic that shell sponsored. Large companies do something alot more noble then treehuggers every single day of the year. They supply me with energy I need. What have YOU done for me lately? And blowing your hot air does not count.

To the guy that thinks 35 mpg is good here is a list of cars that I have owned in the past:

Lincoln Continental (20 mpg) 2001
Audi A6 (twice) (20 mpg) 2000 and 2004
Chrysler Concord (21 mpg) 1992
Volkswagon Rabbit (30 mpg) 1978
Volkswagon Diesel Jetta (40 mpg) 1990
Plymouth, Toyota and Honda mini vans (20 mpg) 1992, 2000 2002
Toyota Tercel (I got 45 mpg back in 84) 1984
Buick Skylark (who knows - it didn't run long) 1982
Chrysler Lebaron Turbo (23 mpg) 1988
Toyota Celica (28 mpg) 1984

Except for the Celica, Skylark and Chrysler mini van all were purchased new. I say this because gl is going to think I just drive beaters. Nope, some of these were luxury cars, gas guzzlers and down right expensive. Looks like I went through a lot of cars. No, I have not worked for a dealer since 1978, none of the cars were hot and none were ever totaled - except the Honda mini van that came close (I actually still have it). Except for one they were all traded back to dealers (don't have time to sell them myself). I only bring all of this up because I don't want gl thinking I don't have much experience with cars.

To those appalled by my previous gas guzzling choices you'll be happy to know that I've wised up.
The last two cars I have owned have been Honda Civic Hybrids (five years of Hybrid Driving!) Both at least 45 mpg, both fairly fast and comfortable. Of all the cars I have owned the current Honda Civic Hybrid is the most comfortable, convenient, fun and safest car of all of them.

The point is, 45 mpg is here today (it was here in '84) in a great safe and fast car. And with lighter materials and engine improvements (sorry to say they will only come with mandates or all out middle east war) these cars could easily get 65 mpg within 5 years (thats a mass produced fun, fast and safe car) Did I say fast? Did I say within 5 years? Did I say sexy and mass produced? And within 10 we could have a majority that are plug in electrics with emergency gas back up. These could cut real carbon emissions to a level equivalent to a 100 mpg car (or better) in a package not much different than today's civic hybrid. It is possible - but only through regulation.

So to the people whining that government regs are bad and that 35 mpg is good and that efficient cars are boring, slow, uncomfortable and unsafe go to your local Honda dealer today and check out the 45 mpg civic. To those who say 45 mpg is not good enough, I agree. We need stronger regs, better mass transit, and more people working in their own neighborhoods.

PS: To those who don't agree with stronger environmental regs I must say with a bit of a smirk - RON PAUL LOST!

It is very interesting that people are arguing over whether or not a car should be getting more than 35 mpg, or if this is an acceptable mileage rating.

The critique of what the customer wants is what manufacturers are going to make is flawed. In World War II people wanted more food than was available in the rations. They were not allowed to have more because we were facing a national crisis.

Climate change is the same kind of crisis. We need to move beyond the wants of the American consumer to the needs of our global society. We need vehicles that get a higher gas mileage. We must learn to accept this and stop discussing the consumer desires.

And for those who say we can't do that, I have three words: You Are Wrong!

The climate crisis demands immediate action at a magnitude that matches the scope of the problem. The American consumer must get on board.

"Necessity is the mother of all invention, and you can find so many easy ways to work around this lack of car ownership."

I got a job 40 miles from where I live. I have a child that I can't take from the town she lives in and I gave up a good paying job in another state to be closer to my child.

YOU tell ME how I get to work every day 40 miles away without my car.

"We need to move beyond the wants of the American consumer to the needs of our global society. "

The wants of the [typically ignorant] American Consumer is what puts certain people in public office. That, and the wants of those looking to exploit the American Consumer for their own ends.

The time of intelligent and concerned public officials is LONG gone. We only have a handful of respectable leaders in this country, and they can't do anything against the giant machine that's been built to remove wealth from the masses and put it at the feet of the ruling elite. In fact, that machine is moving them from America, where it was built, to the entire globe. Once the beast leaves the construction yard, the yard will be a barren wasteland (read: America is in for serious hurt now that the other 95% of the planet want to live like they each deserve 40% of the planet's resources).

I was at a party last night where a guy said "I love wal-mart.. I know some people hate it, but that's the only way I can afford to shop". I said, "You could just buy less stuff. Don't buy all the crap you don't really need, then you could afford to buy it at some other store". His response? "But I like buying CDs and DVDs!" ... and he votes (and has kids)

Savantster - I agree with you that there are many situations in which cars are, if not necessary, something very close to necessary. This is why I think that there is a great deal of room for efficient cars in our world now and in the future.

But do you know how many miles Americans drove last year? Over 3 trillion. 3 trillion miles! To put that in perspective: a million seconds is about eleven days, a billion seconds is a few years over a decade (I forget the exact number), and a trillion seconds is 32,000 years.

Surely, there are many, many ways to reduce this number. Because you cannot convince me that it is necessary for us in the US to drive 10,000 miles for each citizen every year.

What are these ways? Increase access to public transportation and quality of public transportation, for one. On a local, state, regional, and national scale. Also, increase access and quality of bike routes. And how about walking more? In your situation, Savantster, that wouldn't make sense, but I know from personal experience that there are countless drives made each year that are less than a mile or two in distance. And those can be walked.

Not to mention, we can limit urban sprawl...

You folks argue like a bunch of old women. We have two choices, kill everyone who opposes us in the middle east and take the damn oil from them or find a better way to entertain ourselves than driving what we have now.
Huge advances in technology, particularly, carbon fiber, battery and magnetic areas as well as aerodynamics have brought us closer to an improved car faster than the alternative, witness the Tesla
VW, not our fat cat GM or Ford, has a new, turbo diesel hybrid that really makes the grade. Using Algae fed on sewage and compostables from existing landfill feeds to make sustainable diesel has been developed here in North America and I believe, the best is yet to come. We will win against the oil barons.

Wake up to these realities...

It is ironic that "Progressive" policies and politics and those that live by them, want to plunge us back into an 1800's life style.

These same people lack the knowledge that in the 1800's our air quality was worse than today and our streets were riddled with sickness because of horse manure. TECHNOLOGY, the result of PROGRESS, helped clean our air and streets.

There are people who TRAVEL for a living...like TRUCKERS, entertainers (like me), salespeople, etc. Who is ANYONE to tell them how or what they can drive? "Progressives" telling anyone how to live are simply restricting their FREEDOM.

If ANY company made an SUV (which many families need to transport things like FOOD, kids, equipment, etc) that got 100 mpg or so...or even hopefully more...and went at the same rate of speed with the same rate of acceleration, EVERYONE would buy one.

We should NOT have to change our lifestyles. We are better and smarter than that. We can come up with the solutions to this problem, but not most of these pieces of garbage that are talked about on here.

Andy did you bump your head? Sure another tax to make government bigger yet! 'Government at best is a necessary evil' Ben Franklin. But of coarse government has no connection to oil.

People that need/want cars will buy cars that are available and in their budget. IF the only cars that were on the market were small efficient cars getting 70-100 mpg, then people would buy them (or they'd pay a lot to refurbish all the SUV's in America's landfills (not a bad idea).

I know this is the land of the free and capitalism is God (you can cut the sarcasm with a knife), but at some point relatively soon, America is going to have to make some tough choices. Breathable air and the ability to live in Florida or NYC without being under water would be nice. Notice I say America is going to have to make choices, not Americans. Individual people cannot be trusted to make decisions that are for the wellfare of the many. If Hummers are still for sale, stupid people will still buy them.